# Oldand Dilis

Senior Members

49

## Posts posted by Oldand Dilis

### Evidence found supporting 3 dimensional time at play in the double slit experiment

If you delete this post/thread my blog goes straight back online. I don't expect you to put it back into hot topics I don't want anyone humiliated but put my webpage in hot topics and get discussions going......before I do put my blog online again

And remove all my negative points too.

2 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

'Your moderators are liars and thieves'

He's an 'Evil Liar' actually. Not sure about the thieving though.

Yes he said I could post my webpage on the thread and it wouldn't be deleted because I said I had a formula, then when I did he didn't understand it and deleted it. That's the same as theft.

### Evidence found supporting 3 dimensional time at play in the double slit experiment

7 hours ago, Mordred said:

Is there any need for three dimensional time when everyone knows time applies to all three spatial dimensions in the first place ?

We give time dimensionality by defining an interval (ct). However this never implied a time interval only applies to one spatial coordinate only. The Lorentz boosts can apply to all three spatial dimensions.

Time is simply a measure of rate of change or duration. It isn't a thing unto itself to have units pertaining to a volume.

Your moderators are liars and thieves that's why you can't see truth. It absolutely does pertain to volume. Below is why.

You are liars and thieves because previously you agreed a deal to see a formula then you broke the deal when you saw it and didn't understand it.

Taken from an update to doubleslitsolution dot weebly dot com

INTRODUCING THE COSMIC SECOND
To illustrate the concept mathematically we need the assumption of a universal time unit which I will call a cosmic second "cs" and  an Earth second I will call "es"
then the amount of information we can possibly move within an arbitrary set area of matter say of volume for example 1cm³ in 1cs is 1/1.333πn³ where n is the amount of information sent.

With three dimensional time what I am saying is that if 1cs in outer space is measured as 1es dilated to a super massive planet or sun so the local time measurement of 1cs is now 2es and the information moved within that specific area of matter in space in 1cs is 1/1.333π1tb units then the information which can be moved within that same volume of matter in 1cs is not just doubled when dilated. Where the possible information moved in that volume of matter in outer space within the 1cs was say 1.333π1tb now in one cs we can move 1.333π8tb within that same volume of matter.

I have screen shots of when you lied and broke the deal in my blog. I have hidden my blog for now but I might just put it back online. Some apologies and humility and putting my page all over the place IMMEDIATELY might dampen my anger because I'm really f####g pissed of with liars and thieves at the minute. No promises but I have a soft heart so you better act fast and pray hard because I just cracked the mathematical explanation tonight and the emails to all the key players including a Nobel Laureate who has been positively communicating with me have been sent.

### Evidence found supporting 3 dimensional time at play in the double slit experiment

Simple verifiable explanation of 3 dimensional time

3 dimensional time is quite simple, it is a logical property of Einstein's time dilation in Special Relativity. If we blow up a balloon we know that it increases in 3 dimensions of space. If we have any two points marked on the balloon then as it inflates their distance in space increases.   If we send information between these two points along the surface then the time it takes for the information to pass between them is increased in direct proportion to the increase in space. So at the quantum level it is not just the time between "particles" that causes time to dilate, it is time within "particles" which dilates directly in 3 dimensions. If we have internal networks inside particles then if we send information along these paths again time is dilated in 3 dimensions within particles.

I have located video evidence showing that what is happening in the double slit experiment is due to time being 3 dimensional. Evidence located in 2 separate experiments online Hitachi 1989 and Nebraska Lincoln University 2013. I also provide a new simple experiment setup to triple verify 3 dimensional time which will show particles acting as never before expected by physicists, moving sideways through space and time. Also I explain the equation which solves it. Δt³∝1/ΔxΔp I am still homeless and penniless so I cant get it peer reviewed under open access as all journals want big money and professional physicists likely aren't reading it because it is not peer reviewed. The important point is this is not the usual open ended theoretical speculation. I have located the evidence and provide a new simpler experiment setup to triple verify it.

While physicists assert the anomaly in the double slit experiment cannot be a wave crest because it works with electrons which are quantized so that would be impossible it is only impossible in one dimensional time. In experiments it appears as a single particle due to the limitations of locality of measurement in three dimensional time.

The crucial point which clarifies the difference between one and 3 dimensional time in the experiments is the number of hits on the wall. If time were one dimensional then every particle fired would leave a mark where every wave crest hits a wall. Where we get the interference pattern there should be 5 wave crests hitting the wall with every particle fired (if there are 5 bands in the interference pattern) because every wave crest from primary and secondary waves will arrive at the wall. They don't though as seen in the videos of the experiments, only one wave crest leaves a mark at only one point in matter that is within the timeband which is set by 1.the source, 2.positions in space and 3.detectors for momentum (positions also acting as detectors for momentum but for the sake of keeping it simple I refer to detectors separate from the positions in the walls). In the classic double slit experiment most of these arrive at the front screen/wall, the subsequent waves pass through the slits and the back wall but not all leave a mark. Just as every point in space may have multiple radio signals passing along the same airwaves only the ones tuned into will be amplified and detectable in our reality. In these experiments that physical amplification happens only when the three variables time, position and momentum are optimal at any point in the field where two waves of energy meet, the looping energy wave in matter gets knocked out of its loop back into the field and the mark is left.

What is happening in the double slit experiment is explained in detail using simple logic on a commercial website

### WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

I gave my argument and posted a link but you broke your contract, your word Strange you agreed it would be allowable if there is an argument to back it. Screenshots have been taken of both threads.

I disagree that an idea cannot be copyright that's basically all that can be copyrighted. I would advise you to reinsert the link as soon as you can because I am fairly sure you have no idea just how much trouble you have asked for with your "clever" little trick to dishonestly get privy to the information. Now that you have it you cannot give it back you are stuck with it so best go back and reinstate the link in line with your contract/agreement. I'm helping you here by giving you the option to save your forum and possibly everything else you own. Of that I am certain (I am actually very highly qualified in international law) while for you, you will now have an uncertainty every minute that passes. Serves you right, cheats always get caught sooner or later and you just got caught straight away. Do the right thing and reinsert the link before it's too late that's my advice (Dont even try to delete it, too late for that) Because if you don't you WILL regret it and that is a certainty. I have no wish for your demise, it's in your hands but you better think and act fast....very very fast because if your site is quoted with my equation without reference to me and my site then you and yours are XXXXed (rhymes with tucked).

### The formula that solves the double slit experiment has been cracked.

Δt∝1/ΔxΔp

ΔxΔp is inversely proportional to Δt. By adding a third factor...time... to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle we solve the double slit experiment....at last...it's basically about focus (think magic eye 2D holograms) in 3 dimensional time.

When we half the time variable by detecting which slit the "particle" passes through we double the certainty of finding hits at the 2 main vertical bands on the back wall and halve the certainty of finding hits from subsequent waves. So with enough particles fired during detecting which slit we should still see the interference pattern but very very slightly (so slight they have never been noticed before) while the two primary wave crests will be very prominent. It was previously thought that it could not be the crest of a wave because an electron can't be quantized but Spring Time Theory shows the potential energy in the quantum particles is released as the oscillating energy propagates out in waves in 3 dimensional time usually undetected by the limitations of locality in 3 dimensional time. The full explanation and the unified field theory that solves it are available on.

### WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is nothing to do with the moderators. You own copyright in anything you post here, anyway. If you want to assert further licensing conditions that is up to you, and up to you to enforce.

Although you can’t copyright an idea, so some one could just rewrite it in their own words, and express the math differently. (Not that anyone would want to.)

There is no rule against posting a link to support your argument. If all you do is post a link, then that will be a violation of the rules.

Thanks for the clear reply Strange,

A few things incorrect there I would argue Strange but nothing worth arguing about. That's clear enough,

I'll post the formula in a new thread I'm not going to waste any more of my time my months of work having it go straight into pseudoscience, speculations or crackpot threads or wherever this is.

### WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

On 10/14/2019 at 3:27 PM, Ghideon said:

Can you post the version of your model that these claims are based on, including the mathematical formulas?

Yes but it is copyrighted under CC licence and the weblink and author must be quoted anywhere it is used. Do moderators agree to see it with such conditions?

On 10/14/2019 at 2:38 PM, swansont said:

You found one? When will you post it?

When the moderators agree to the conditions of the CC licence and do not remove it later after gaining the information themselves only to withhold that information from others.

And just to be clear the site is not monetised, contains no porn, violent, racist, sexist etc content it is suitable for all ages. The reason for this is the CC terms have been set, if this forum is where the formula and theories are understood and go viral from generating hits and business for the forum from my work the original work must also be generating hits even though I do not want any money or business of any kind. My interest is only to spread the information fairly I have no interest in business.

### WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

On 8/4/2019 at 11:07 PM, Strange said:

And, even without math, Oldland Dills idea appears to be incorrect (as he has redshift decreasing with distance instead of increasing). So it is qualitatively wrong, never mind any quantitative details.

Not true I said any outward expansion or in other words stretch would have decreased redshift which is caused by pathchange. It turns out the expansion is inward causing pathchange and thats how I solved the vacuum catastrophe, now added to my list along with solving/correcting charge parity violation, quantum entanglement, gravity, black holes, gravitational waves....and got the mathematical formula that solves the double slit experiment.

On 8/4/2019 at 10:40 PM, Amazing Random said:
On 8/4/2019 at 10:22 PM, Strange said:

As you can't do any math for your model, there is no way you can know if that is true or not.

It doesn't need . If it doesn't disobey any law and is a result of law/combination of laws it is correct.

At last thinking outside the box, actual imaginative intelligence, the same which helped me find the mathematical formula. Word bro!

### WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

On 8/1/2019 at 11:48 AM, Ghideon said:

I think﻿﻿﻿﻿ you missed my post regarding multiple time dimensions. Here is a shorter version for you:
As you introduce new time dimensions you need to start from scratch. You need to redefine photons, atoms, electro﻿ns and all other particles. General and special relativity needs to be replaced. You cannot use additional time dimensions to explain concepts that requires exactly one time dimension. With multiple time dimensions there exists no photons*. And no atoms exists to create double slits from. Redefining physics is a huge task, but n﻿ew models have emerged in the past so it is  possible that f﻿uture discoveries will change our current theories. ﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

Simply incorrect my theory is consistent with relativity of you looked at it properly you would see that. Maybe you too are a part time diploma scientist out of your depth.  My style of argument is in response to the snobbery, condescention and lies you hypocrite to comment on my style, I have been more than patient and respectful for too long with your snobbery. I also solve the seemingly unspoken elephant in the room with science WHAT causes redshift? EXPANSION OF WHAT in the Universe?

The popular accepted explanation is that redshift explains the expansion of the Universe and because objects nearer us show more redshift than more distant objects the universe must have been expanding slower in the past. I say this is incorrect, no one I have seen gives an exact explanation given as to WHY an expansion changes frequency or even why the speed of light remains constant despite wavelength and frequency changes, longer wavelength should logically increase the speed but it doesn't. I explain why, yes redshift is caused by expansion but not of the Universe but by gravity causing curvature, leading to path change. Consider the spring like analogy I used before, light travels in it's spring/corkscrew like spiral through the quantum balls/particles (looking like a sound wave from the side and a spin from the front) when gravity causes curvature then one side of the spring contracts as it is pulled in and the other side expands. So as it passes through curvature light's path/frequency changes because its angle of entry to each next quantum particle is changed giving it a different frequency. When we see objects far away exhibiting less redshift in the past it is because there were less large objects to curve light's path. As the Universe ages objects grow larger creating more gravity more curvature and more redshift as light is pulled off its path changing its frequency. When the light passes the curved path its frequency has been changed so even if it is back on a straight path again its frequency does not return to its original spiral width it continues on its new one. It has taken a different path through the quantum particles. Larger angle of entry (to the axis) means paths spiral route is wider with less rotations/bends to travel through, smaller angle means route has more bends but closer together/higher frequency so the path from entry to exit is the same giving us the constant speed regardless of wavelength (very rough photo of the drawing explaining the theory on a very beaten jotter is on my website blog). So it is not necessarily that the Universe is expanding and even if it is redshift is not caused by such an expansion but it is the contraction of the spacetime fabric by large objects gravity that causes redshift (if it is not then explain why freqency change? EXPANSION OF WHAT? Fudge?) Once the lights frequency has been changed it will continue in its new frequency when it reaches a straight path again (relatively straight as we know that the observable Universe is almost but not quite flat). As it travels through space it gets continually turned onto new paths with curvature until eventually it gets bent to "fall in a spiral" eventually down towards the centre of the universe again. This supports the theory that we are at the surface of the spacetime fabric and light reaching the edge curves back down towards the centre. Perhaps this may explain the distribution of the CMB also?? Maybe not but......maybe.... I have to watch some more videos, the flatness problem is likely just one of scale, the Universe is humungulonguloungous and compared with Earth our visible Universe is to the universe probably something like as a plate or coin is to the Earth, I provide the Unified Field Theory that explains everything from teleportation, quantum entanglement, structure of quarks, orbitals of electrons all which can all be TESTED FOR so stop lying and I give a VERIFIABLE solution to the double slit experiment and a SECOND new simpler variation to cross check (no probabilities, no potentials, no dead cats, or Copenhagen lager fuelled waffle but a certainty every time)

The good news it kind of rules out the big freeze.....phew ...panic over. I might get some bubbly...

### WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

Some maths explaining the weight of atomic nuclei. I'm not even going to reply to Strange any more you showed you were out of your depth when you stated that watched or not watched is the most important element of the double slit experiment (cringe). I thought I was talking with proper physicists not people with part time diplomas in science so it makes sense why this is over your heads and you are crying mathematics, because you can't understand the PRINCIPLE which always comes before the maths confirm it. Also why none of you are able to do the modelling or maths that has been sitting waiting to be explained for 100 years. but just in case there are any actual physicists in this forum here's some maths explaining how the action around the quantum balls forms neutrons and protons the video with the visual representation is available on

the subscript giving the maths is here

A visual example of quarks movements always 2 against one. Each quark made up of 13 quantum balls in Newtons 13 "kissing balls" shape. One "quantum ball" lost by each as a gluon shared or stretched equally between another. All quantum balls essentially the same carrying energy travelling as vibrations/waves as gluons, electrons and collectively as quarks. Hence why the weight of a neutron or proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron.

1728 (12³) being the cumulative spin "weight" of the 12 balls in each quark plus the cumulative spin of the qluons binding them by shared pull and why their weight is not equal to the other 12 balls 12 x 3 directions of 3 objects 12x3x3 108 giving us 1836 altogether.
More information about the full unified field theory and the solution to the double slit experiment available on please stop advertising your site here

Give me another negative point if you want if you're all only part time diploma level science students. I just post in the off chance there's someone who will understand this among you.

### WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is not snobbery. It just a fact that you cannot make predictions to test your idea without math. If you can't make testable predictions then there is no reason to consider your vague claims.

It can be measured and it matches the mathematics of the theory. Until you can do that, you have nothing but "just so" stories, which are worthless.

I don't have money or privilege, and I don't think I am superior.

I am just pointing out that no one can tell if your idea is correct or not unless you can make testable predictions.

I don't think I am particularly intelligent. And I don't have much formal education. My highest qualification is a diploma from a part-time course when I was working.

You haven't﻿﻿﻿ provided "solutions" because you haven't provided anything that can be tested. You have just told some stories (that make sense to you) about what you think is happening. This is not science.

Citation needed.

Stop playing the victim and provide some science. (This is a science forum, after all.)

Lies, everything I have provided can be tested. I provide tests for the double slit, quantum entanglement, orbitals, the problem is you people with the privelege (relative for some still privelege compared to some who have no running water or electricity or primary education) won't to the tests, you are a snob, rarely does a true snob ever say yes I am a snob. When they do they are usually racists and bigots too. The solution to redshift and the horizon problem I'll be continuing on my website blog and elsewhere, not in the mood for more insults "playing the victim" your snobbery and arrogance shines through even when you try to refute it. Lying, snob.

### WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

15 hours ago, swansont said:

This "The Emperor's New Clothes" reboot isn't very good.

And that's a huge problem.

Then do﻿﻿﻿ the m﻿odeling﻿﻿﻿.

I don't have a computer, (or a home), I'm using a phone with a broken screen which has a "mind of its own". The problem here on this forum seems to be snobbery like this, that's whats blinding you the colonial superiority complex, "oh the native can't speak our language so she must be stupid, every intelligent person speaks English(or maths) haw haw chuckle chuckle" Snobbery also at the core of strange's blindness. I can't get you guys to understand on the physics level so I begin to study chemistry to see if I can do it there. Within ONE DAY of studying chemistry I can explain orbitals of electrons around atomic nuclei some thing which physics still can't explain logically, it can be measured mathematically sure but with no logic to explain it. When I do the snob Strange says "bizarrely enough you have got the correct answer...." Bizarrely why? Because with all your money and privilege you still haven't learned that humility and respect for every human equally is important you can't resist trying to assert your superiority even when I'm correct you try to belittle me.  You still think you are more intelligent than someone because you were privileged enough to get an education so now that you have learned other peoples theories and can recite them with your artificial human intelligence you think you are superior. I provide solutions to the double slit(with a variation to cross check), quantum entanglement (with a test), frequency, spin, gravity, atomic orbitals, teleportation but just like the fool's Galileo was faced with you sit going "no no stupid, can't be right, no no not looking at the evidence". What a waste of money your education was I'm losing patience with such stupid snobbery.  I provide an explanation for the weak force and then studying chemistry explain the strong force IN ONE DAY. I think I have solved the horizon problem also today and its nothing to do with the age of the universe but as I've already given you snobs everything from the solution to the double slit, QE, frequency etc and you wont look at that, I don't think I'll bother wasting my time you will just sit laughing saying "the native is stupid because she can't speak Maths haw haw" instead of doing something useful. Probably so fat and over fed the fat is slowing down the neuron transmissions in your artificial intelligence. As for language if you had any understanding of that you would know that the brain processes ALL languages even maths visually so its not me who is stupid I'm communicating at the highest level and your safety blanket of mathematics is limiting yours so take your snobbery and stick it wherever you like, what a waste of human potential, colonial snobs.

### WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

7 hours ago, Strange said:

We have precise mathematical theories that make testable (and tested) predictions. Why should anyone accept your vague handwaving over useful theories that actually work?

Because I solved the double slit experiment with a second variation that will also work. Because I provide a way to test orbital paths formation using computer modelling and a test to check for quantum entanglement hinging on time dimensions.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

You﻿ don't﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ have a theory. There is no math. Without math, yo﻿u can't make precise prediction﻿s﻿.

I clearly have a theory that I got without maths and solved the double slit using primary school maths, something seems to be blinding you to accepting it, again you could embrace it or scoff at it until someone else embraces it. Your choice. No I can't make precise predictions but I provide the fields exact structure which can be modelled to do so.

### WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

My battery is at 4% ill explain when I get powered up if I get cut off. frequency os the energy along paths around the quantum balls is like a corkscrew or spring shape. From the side it looks like a sound wave shown visually from head on it looks like spin. Im at 3%. Gonna have to find a cafe

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

What﻿ are these three time dimensions you mention? What is your definition of frequency when there are multiple ti﻿me dimensions? What does the two extra time dimensions ﻿explain?﻿﻿﻿﻿

The two extra dimensions of time provide the solution to the double slit. When focusing on/observing a particle along the slice of time it is in just like the finishing line on a race we can only record to see the result at that spot. If the track were not all one for example if the race (the source of energy/vibration) has all players (particles) standing inside an inner circle and each running along a radius towards buzzers located on an outer circle. They will all hit the buzzer at the same time if they all run and swing their hands down at the  same speed. However we can only record one runner at a time with each camera. If there's a square outside the outer circle (the back wall in the double slit) the runner directly facing it will hit the buzzer first the others hitting theirs later, same speed but arriving along different paths so arriving after. This could be easily verified using the variation on the Double slit experiment with angled walls as I explained previously.

The effect of these dimensions on the frequency corkscrew/spring analogy I'll have to think about but it seems to me initially they are all single instances of energy moving through the path so all other relational energies will also be following the same frequency and spin with the same corkscrew pattern along their paths moving out in their individual direction from the same central source of the energy/vibration.

### WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

Regarding field and mathematics. Mathematics DESCRIBE values, shape, speed, orientation etc. They describe what we see, feel hear etc. Its the objects themselves we use on a practical basis. You don't have to know every thread depth and width on every screw, every exact radius of every pipe and cylinder, every number of sparks per second, every grade of fuel to invent or visualise a car and understand how it works. That comes later, that's important for formalising it to work on. Jimi Hendrix didn't need to read or write music to create music neither do we need to to feel and understand it. The writing of it is for a specific way of sharing it. So is physics just a way to help us LIVE it in itself is only one discipline of use in our lives every day.

### WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

On 7/25/2019 at 9:27 AM, swansont said:

The﻿ QM answer﻿﻿﻿ is that they don't. They are in orbitals, which is﻿ not the same thing.

If they were actually or﻿biting they would be accelerating, and﻿ would need to continuously radiate, which they obviously do﻿ no﻿t ﻿d﻿﻿o﻿

## Ok fine orbitals are not the same thing I have no problem with that. It still comes from the same pull on the fabric creating the paths. Yes the duck, swimmer analogy is incorrect I was thinking that this morning when thinking about frequency! Thanks I'll correct that on the site. What my field theory does provide however is an explanation for frequency and spin of particles which gives us a 7th dimension 3 in space 3 in time and one in the field (indicating there are more). As the particle/energy/vibration moves forward through the field it follows a path around and along the quantum balls which makes an incredibly long spring or corkscrew shape. Spin surely explains why some particles absorb others and repel the same when spinning opposite directions (Like trying to jump on a merry go round from the wrong direction).

### Quantum entanglement explained with no probabilities spookiness or dependence on consciousness.

Time dimensions are key to understanding quantum entanglement. When we seem to force the particle to align with the direction of the measurement we are not actually affecting the spin what we are doing is focusing on one time dimension. So while the energy passing through the fabric is causing it to spin in multiple directions I imagine similar to like ball bearings in a wheel because the two particles are entwined whatever way they spin will be relational to each other exactly opposite in every way at every instant. When we observe this it will always be an observation in the same time dimension no matter how far apart they are so their behaviour will always reflect exactly the opposite direction, speed, angle etc. The full explanation and much more with amendments is available on my website on please stop advertising your site here

In light of the fact I explain using logic and common sense why electrons orbit atomic nuclei and the mechanics behind quantum entanglement you guys should be starting to sit up and take notice. A note of caution for "strange" or any other moderator who shows they aren't quite as clever as they think, in "strange's" case stating that watched or not watched is NOT the whole point of the double slit experiment when of course it clearly is. The same person I think I remember scoffing at me for stating light is matter when it turns out other physicists explain this is a relative not a definitive term as it has no DETECTABLE mass but given its speed is itself limited by time then time being proportional to mass it indeed is matter of a kind. I have named another science forum in the blog I have started (on the double slit website) for closing a discussion on teleportation calling it star trek sci fi obviously unaware it's been happening since 1997. Just by a stroke of chance fortune smiled on me and I managed to get Brian Greene's personal email which isn't available online and my guess is when he gets back from his holidays or engagements with time to go through his email at leisure (relative leisure of course) and sees the email, with his clear understanding of time dimensions (he is clear he is looking for conclusive evidence of the same because as he says, "the maths don't rule it out") it wont be long before this goes global. So be careful how you treat my posts from now on because I don't intend to name names but I will name organisations and websites that have acted to block this scientific breakthrough and up until now (unwittingly perhaps) you have. Time to get real people please. Time to open up my discussions again and move them back into theories serious or "hot" topics if you have them NOT speculations or personal theories so serious mathematicians and physicists get a chance to review and explore the possibilities and mathematics. I consider keeping my work in speculations and private theories as holding back this breakthrough so I advise you think and act fast. I seriously urge any moderator or commentator to stop and think carefully before responding with a knee jerk reaction because I don't intend to go back and alter my blog after I write something. I've already said some things in the blog that are very controversial and perhaps unwise and I half wish I hadn't but its a real reflection of my thought process so I plan to leave everything even when I make stupid mistakes and so I will leave everyone else's also. Fortunately for me I can explain how and why I acted stupidly when I do, anyone else named on the site may have a harder time doing so and I don't plan on doing it on anyone's behalf. The mathematics are still sitting waiting for someone with a bit of imagination to make a name for themselves by being the first to describe the theory mathematically. Your choice: continue scoffing or seize the opportunity. Neither leave the theory in speculations or personal theories and work on it selfishly in private because I will name names if anyone tries to do that. I'm not saying that any of you would but just stating it in case.

### WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

Further contemplation on my Unified Field Theory and starting to study chemistry leads immediately (the first day) to solving another long standing mystery in physics. WHY electrons orbit an atoms nucleus. The energy/vibration travels forward in a sense like an object on water, a duck, a boat, a swimmer. Moving forward and sending waves out in all directions as it does. Just as a swimmer arrives at the end of a swimming pool the forward wave hits the wall but the wave continues out in all directions. In the quantum world the object/vibration/energy can only move forward but as the fabric of space time becomes curved that path also becomes curved hence why electrons get fixed in orbitals around an atoms nucleus. While gravity is a much weaker force it works on the same principle. Its like comparing creating a vortex by dragging a paddle around a swimming pool to gather debris in the middle to gravity. It's a slow but sure process while on the atomic level it's like creating a vortex in a cup by stirring a spoon around fast. The effect is instant and strong.  Unfortunately I don't have a computer and the software to build a lattice simulation of the spacetime fabric. If I did or when someone does I am confident the maths will show that a perfect orbital path only happens at certain points corresponding to the inner and outer zones where electrons spin around the nucleus of each individual element. The logical assumption is that these paths intersect at certain points allowing electrons to cross paths and share orbitals around other elements creating compounds.

For heavier elements as the core structure becomes larger it inherently becomes less and less uniform and uneven leaving its spin unstable and its paths less able to follow symmetrically perfect orbital circuits both of which lead to energy escaping ie. radiation.

### Resistance leads to mass and time in 3 dimensions.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Are you planning to post any science?

A solution to the double slit experiment with a new variation of the experiment to cross check is verifiable/science.

### Resistance leads to mass and time in 3 dimensions.

An amendment to the introduction/abstract of my paper of the Unified Field Theory explaining resistance is what leads to time and mass. The more resistance the more time and weight...in 3 dimensions.

The field described here provides a foundation which makes for clear simple  logical explanations of gravity, electromagnetism, quantum entanglement, light, matter, teleportation, radio waves, radiation with the underlying principle being that everything we perceive is essentially vibrations/energy passing through the field. The field is a flexible fabric made up of quantum balls/particles connected by quantum string which are invisible at rest becoming visible when excited by vibrations/energy. The most direct hitting vibration ie. light moves almost seamlessly exciting each quantum particle as it passes. When watched it appears as a particle moving but it is not the particle rather the vibration which is moving through the quantum particles. With more energy/vibration the field begins to experience resistance leading to a stretch in the fabric leading to mass and time, time is directly proportional to mass in three dimensions. Because time has been percieved as one dimensional, (forward moving) observations have reflected only one time dimension but as this field provides a logical and verifiable explanation for the double slit experiment (also on this website with a new variation on the double slit experiment allowing us to cross check) a more complete picture is now possible.
(Amended 12/07/2019 to clarify the effect of resistance and mention the new variation of the double slit experiment)

### Does this variation on the double slit experiment work?

Time dilation is directly proportional to matter (more mass more time) as we see and like matter time is directly proportional in 3 dimensions.

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're nothing if not persistent, perhaps you could describe the different time dimensions in the language of love science e.g. maths.

Time﻿ dilation is directly proportional to matter (more mass m﻿ore time) as we see and like matter time is directly proportional in 3 dimensions﻿.

### Double slit solution solved, time is 3 dimensional

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why﻿ do﻿﻿ you think that would make a difference﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿?﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

That is the reason why the double slit experiment is seen as holding the key to the central problem of quantum physics. Because watching or not makes all the difference

### Double slit solution solved, time is 3 dimensional

The existing evidence is focused on only one time dimension so of course it may appear conclusive. That's the whole point. It is not factoring in different time dimensions. Again I say run the variation  of the experiment and prove me wrong. If you can. Giving me negative marks already shows negative bias, not open minded science. Proving a new model of the experiment is wrong would be science. Saying it is wrong before trying it is exactly the same mindset as the flat Earthers and it certainly did happen, it took a further 2000 years after the Greeks proved the world was round for most others to get their heads around the fact because they were too busy saying how ridiculous it was to take a look... Same happening here. What I mean by when recorded is when watched.

### Does this variation on the double slit experiment work?

If someone has access to a lab please do this variation on the double slit experiment to show that what is affecting the result is different time dimensions. Rather than record using slits run the experiment like this. Have the wall facing the laser made from light sensitive material and 4 extra walls coming out at angles say 135° from the main wall (similar to reflectors on photographic shoot lighting) these also made from light sensitive material. The angle should be relational to the distance from the laser so these walls central point is the same distance from the laser as the main wall facing the laser directly. Run the experiment to watch the photons and again not watching the electron. I predict when recorded to watch the photon only the direct facing wall will show impacts from the photon and it appears like a single photon. When not watching the photon all 5 walls will show areas of impact. Showing that like the double slit the photon is always only one part of a vibrational wave. The part of the wave with the strongest vibration usually perceived as a single particle will leave the most intense mark on the wall but the wave will continue out in all directions hitting the other walls appearing also as particles but arriving in other time dimensions so not usually noticed. when watching we are only seeing whats happening in the first time dimension. When not watching we will see results from all time dimensions.  The full theory of why and how this works is on

### Double slit solution solved, time is 3 dimensional

47 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

At his time it is the other way around. Science has gathered evidence that the world is round and you keep stating the earth is flat. Reality does not seem to agree with the number of time dimensions you propose.

Au contraire the experiment as I explain I am confident will show I am correct but by all means prove me wrong.

×